Case law

Youtie v. MacY's Retail Holding, Inc.

626 F. Supp. 2d 511 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 5, 2009

Dvorak, 880 A.2d 657, 663 (Pa.Super.Ct.2005). 10 *523 However, neither party has properly briefed whether this information qualifies as a trade secret. … For defendants’ count VIII for injunctive relief, plaintiff merely states in a footnote in his cross-motion for summary judgment that injunctive relief is “clearly unwarranted as [plaintiff has] not engaged in any improper

Himmler v. United States

474 F. Supp. 914 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 1979

While Gasker was qualified in departure radar services, having received his certification in that service on May 21, 1974, he had not been qualified to handle arriving airplanes on radar. … Thus, the negligence established in Himmler was non-existent in Spaulding .

Lukaszewski v. Nazareth Hospital

764 F. Supp. 57 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 1991

If so, we must first identify the "affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed" before concluding that the Act grants jurisdiction. Id. at 501 , 99 S.Ct. at 1319 (quoting McCulloch v. … A religious organization remains subject to the provisions of Title VII prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, or national origin, so long as it qualifies as an “employer.” See Martin v.

In Re Gracey

80 B.R. 675 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 1987

and 3. that debtor shall immediately write to the parents of all of the children purportedly enrolled in the school, including any parents known by the debtor who are planning to send their children to the school, stating clearly … Nor did it resolve the litigation, decide the merits, determine rights of the parties, or establish damages. Callister v. Ingersoll-Rand Financial Corp., 673 F.2d 305 (10th Cir.1982).

Saylor v. Ridge

989 F. Supp. 680 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1998

Likewise, as plaintiffs clearly knew or had reason to know in May, 1992 that Mr. … To establish a violation of the Rehabilitation Act in this Circuit, a plaintiff need only prove: (1) that he or she is a handicapped individual under the Act; (2) that he was otherwise qualified for the position sought; (

GIORDANO v. HOHNS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2024

Clearly, Plaintiffs’ claim for tortious interference with contractual relations (Count III) falls squarely within the FTCA’s express reservation of sovereign immunity. … Because Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity on any of their claims, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.11 Accordingly, the

Kraemer v. Franklin and Marshall College

941 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 9, 1996

In accordance with established F & M policy, Cooper’s one-year contract must be renewed annually unless he performs unsatisfactorily. … Clearly, this is not a realistic option.

Yanushefsky v. Mathews

430 F. Supp. 29 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 1976

role in reviewing the Secretary’s decision is delimited to making a determina *31 tion as to whether there is “substantial evidence” in the record as a whole to support the finding of the Secretary that plaintiff does not qualify … primary consideration is given to the medical severity of the pneumoconiosis although consideration is *33 also given to the miner’s age, education and work experience. 5 In ruling on a claim for black lung benefits, it is clearly

ADAMS

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 2025

Adams fails to properly state any constitutional violations, Individual County Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 22-23. … Adams would have to plead sufficient facts to establish that Officer South was acting outside the scope of his role — otherwise, sovereign immunity would bar this claim. Gorrio v. Keil, 2025 WL 2636593, at *5-6 (E.D.

Sansom Committee v. Lynn

366 F. Supp. 1271 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1973

In order to insure that environmental factors would be taken into consideration, and to allow for public participation in their consid *1275 eration, NEPA establishes certain procedures which a federal agency must follow … Only those actions which are “major” and which “substantially affect the quality of the human environment” qualify for this treatment.

United States v. Stevenson

325 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2004

For criminal history points of 10, 11 or 12, the sentencing table at USSG Chapter 5, Part A, establishes a criminal history category of V. … Accordingly, Stevenson does not qualify for subsection (b) because she failed to satisfy the precondition of qualification under subsection (a).

HARTMAN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 2026

Hartman attributes to Judge Lightsey — delaying or incorrectly deciding motions in his criminal case — were taken in her judicial capacity in an action over which she clearly could exercise jurisdiction as a judge of … Pa. 2025) (“To state these claims under Section 1983, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) there was an arrest; and (2) the arrest was made without probable cause.”) (citation modified) (citing Saintil v.

DUPREE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 2026

immune from suit.”). … Jurists of reason would not debate the District Court’s conclusion that the state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court

Lassiter v. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

131 F. Supp. 3d 331 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 21, 2015

To survive a motion for summary judgment, Lassiter must first establish a prima-facie case of discrimination by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that he: (1) belongs to a protected class; -(2) was qualified … A plaintiffs “satisfactory performance of duties over a. long period of time leading to a promotion” can “clearly establish ] his qualifications for the job.” Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701, 707 (3d Cir.1989).

Robert Hawthorne, Inc. v. United States Department of Interior

160 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 28, 1958

Each involved some arbitrary and unauthorized act of the agency which, if permitted, would unsettle established titles to hundreds of thousands of acres of land. … It was clearly more than chance that brought those first cases to the District of Columbia. One may well inquire as to where else a Cabinet Officer could be sued.

ZIMMERMANN

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 26, 2026

The Third Circuit has clearly established that “a pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation will justify an order prohibiting further filings without permission of the court.” Chipps v. … ’ immunity to suit.”

Clemens v. Greene

290 F. Supp. 3d 388 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 20, 2018

Defendants first argue that they are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which would deprive the Court of jurisdiction. … "Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion." 34 However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that incarceration

Sament v. Hahnemann Medical College & Hospital

413 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1976

Some General Considerations “While the principle that private action is immune from the restrictions of the Fourteenth Amendment is well established and easily stated, the question whether particular conduct is ‘private,’ … Rather, he must produce some evidence to establish the existence of facts which will support his allegations.

Higgins v. CARPENTERS HEALTH & WELFARE, ETC.

524 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1981

Applying these principles, the undisputed facts of record establish that plaintiff was not justified in relying upon the language in the 1968 booklet regarding credited service for Union membership. … The booklet clearly pertains only to “covered employees,” and plaintiff was not a covered employee. Thus, defendants are not estopped by the language in the 1968 booklet.

United States Ex Rel. Ferenc v. Brierley

320 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1970

. *408 It is well established that where a defendant is able to retain counsel of his own choice, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so. … We consider and decide, rather, that relator was entitled to counsel of his choice because he could afford it, no matter how well qualified court-appointed counsel may have been.